Facts
Both the Insurance Company and the claimants challenged the Award dated 31st July 2018 passed by the MACT, East District, Karkardooma
Source reference: p. 1-2The deceased was an "Assistant General Manager" at Dr. Oetker India Pvt. Ltd. with a CTC of approx. Rs. 17,50,000/-, having worked there for ten years prior to the accident on 15th June 2016
Source reference: p. 2The Insurance Company sought a reduction in compensation by contesting the 50% future prospects and the inclusion of conveyance allowance
Source reference: p. 2-3The claimants sought enhancement by including share capital (ESOPs/Shares) in the dependency calculation
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the deceased could be considered in "permanent employment" for the purpose of granting 50% future prospects despite being in a private company
Source reference: p. 22. Whether 'conveyance allowance' should be excluded from the income for calculating loss of dependency
Source reference: p. 33. Whether share capital/one-time bonuses received during employment should be included in the calculation of dependency
Source reference: p. 34. Whether the interest rate awarded by the MACT should be reduced from 9% to 7.5%
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
The Court applied Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which grants the Tribunal discretion to award simple interest
Source reference: p. 3It relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sneha Lata & Ors. (2026:DHC:2689) and Anjum Ansari v. R. Rajesh Rao (2024 SCC OnLine MP 9613) regarding the criteria for permanent employment in private sectors
Source reference: p. 2For the inclusion of allowances, it followed the Supreme Court precedents in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava (2008) 2 SCC 763, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nalini (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2252), and Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872), which establish that benefits to the family, including transport allowance, constitute "income"
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court rejected the Insurance Company's plea regarding future prospects, noting that the deceased’s ten-year tenure and regular increments at a well-reputed international firm established stability equivalent to permanent employment
Source reference: p. 2Regarding conveyance allowance, the Court applied settled law that allowances beneficial to the family are non-deductible
Source reference: p. 3Conversely, the Court declined the claimants' request to include share capital, reasoning that loss of dependency must be assessed on "regular and consistent income," whereas shares and one-time bonuses are sporadic and do not reflect steady financial dependency
Source reference: p. 3The Court refused to interfere with the 9% interest rate, citing the Tribunal's statutory discretion and the equitable needs of the surviving dependents
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court held that (i) 50% future prospects were correctly awarded due to the deceased's stable career, (ii) conveyance allowance is part of income, (iii) share capital is not "regular income" for dependency, and (iv) 9% interest was reasonable
The Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the MACT Award. The Court directed the release of the remaining 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest to the claimants and permitted the refund of the statutory deposit to the Insurance Company upon compliance
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
National Insurance Co LtdvsAmit Kanojia & Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in